The truth about the Sunday Times editor

[Jozi101]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20071016120450433C350103

People should stop believing everything the ST says.

Quote:

"There is no truth in reports that the editor and journalist will be arrested and/or be brought before court this week," NPA spokesperson
Tlali Tlali said on Tuesday

 

[sox63]

What message are they trying to send? Possesion of stolen goods is OK, as loong as you did not steal it?

Now I can look for a Plasma TV via backdoor channels.

Hopefully the Western Cape DPP would come to his/her senses and charge someone.

 

[kilo39]

What message are they trying to send? Possesion of stolen goods is OK, as loong as you did not steal it?

Now I can look for a Plasma TV via backdoor channels.

Hopefully the Western Cape DPP would come to his/her senses and charge someone.

You seem to have missed the comment in the other thread:

Section 14 talks about confidentiality. There is a clause that says "unless - non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public health." I'd submit that having an alcoholic kleptomaniac, AIDS-denialist in charge of health represents a serious threat to public health.

IE. Sometimes theft or crime is justified if that crime shows: UNJUSTNESS and threat to the greater good.

 

[sox63]

You seem to have missed the comment in the other thread:



IE. Sometimes theft or crime is justified if that crime shows: UNJUSTNESS and threat to the greater good.

Knowing, that Manto drinks like a fish, is not something that threatens the Publics' health.

Her previous conviction on theft is the ONLY thing pertinent to public knowladge.

 

[kilo39]

Knowing, that Manto drinks like a fish, is not something that threatens the Publics' health.

Her previous conviction on theft is the ONLY thing pertinent to public knowladge.

Alcholics have been shown over and over again to make BAD decisions. 600 then 800 now 1000 DAILY aids deaths certainly threatens public health: this is MANTO's policy (include Mbeki.)

Previous conviction for theft shows 'lack of judgement.' (Not to forget dishonesty.)

All in all: generally despicable. Why then are you defending THEM?

 

[sox63]

Alcholics have been shown over and over again to make BAD decisions. 600 then 800 now 1000 DAILY aids deaths certainly threatens public health: this is MANTO's policy (include Mbeki.)

Previous conviction for theft shows 'lack of judgement.'

All in all: generally despicable. Why then are you defending THEM?

As I have said in the other thread where you got the post from, I'm not defending them at all. However refuse to see the respect for someone's privacy trampled on in such a bad way, when it has no material effect on their job/life.

I said the conviction was justified in being published. And I agree with you there. But this issue revolves aroung her medical records.

 

[Jozi101]

Knowing, that Manto drinks like a fish, is not something that threatens the Publics' health.

Her previous conviction on theft is the ONLY thing pertinent to public knowladge.

True. Hell i know for a fact that my company's MD drinks like a fish, that doesn't make him a bad manager though. Matter of fact some of the best engineers i know drink like fish. The whole theft thing.......... eish, i don't know either man. Sh!te, i wasn't even born when that happened. They sure know how to dig up dirt though, i'll give em that!

 

[kilo39]

As I have said in the other thread where you got the post from, I'm not defending them at all. However refuse to see the respect for someone's privacy trampled on in such a bad way, when it has no material effect on their job/life.

I said the conviction was justified in being published. And I agree with you there. But this issue revolves aroung her medical records.

Yes an alcoholic minister who jumps the queue for a bad liver has no right to privacy when her policies (and implementation) affect the lives of millions.

An alcoholic minister who shows no respect for her minions (and people who are trying to help her) should be outed: as unworthy of being a minister.

Yes her shown dishonesty is further exacerbated by her performance in hospital: her derangement should be public knowledge as her decisions effect millions.

Yes, journalists and editors should be lauded instead of hunted: for bringing this knowledge to the public attention.

A person of such low moral fibre should immediately be FIRED.

 

[Tassidar]

True. Hell i know for a fact that my company's MD drinks like a fish, that doesn't make him a bad manager though. Matter of fact some of the best engineers i know drink like fish. The whole theft thing.......... eish, i don't know either man. Sh!te, i wasn't even born when that happened. They sure know how to dig up dig though, i'll give em that!

There is a difference between drinking like a fish and being an alcoholic. If you are able to control your drinking and it does not affect your professional life, I would hesitate to call you an alcoholic.

However, if drinking does have a material affect on your ability to conduct your affairs i.e. dependence on drink and the influence both during and post drinking alter your behaviour to any material extent, then I would classify you as an alcoholic.

To my knowledge, no one has conclusively established whether Manto is an alcoholic (I stand to be corrected and don't have time to do the research). However, if it does have a material impact on her work, it most definitely is according to section 14 "a serious threat to public health".

With regard to the theft: Manto is a public servant. As such she is a leader in the country and should be held to the highest level of morale integrity. With a person of lesser standing, one can be more lenient, however, not with a cabinet minister.

As SOX said, "What message are they trying to send?"
In this case, clearly one that says: "Theft is OK"

 

[kilo39]

As SOX said, "What message are they trying to send?"
In this case, clearly one that says: "Theft is OK"

Yes if the knowledge is in the public interest and shows ineptitude, inaptitude, dishonesty and malfeasance.

BTW. It takes very little to be qualified as an alcoholic: 3 - 6 alcoholic drinks a week qualify you.

(goes to look for definition of alcoholic)

Identification of alcoholism may be difficult because there is no detectable physiologic difference between a person who drinks frequently and a person with the condition. Identification involves an objective assessment regarding the damage that imbibing alcohol does to the drinker's life compared to the subjective benefits the drinker perceives from consuming alcohol. While there are many cases where an alcoholic's life has been significantly and obviously damaged, there are always borderline cases that can be difficult to classify.

 

[Jozi101]

Yes an alcoholic minister who jumps the queue for a bad liver has no right to privacy when her policies (and implementation) affect the lives of millions.

An alcoholic minister who shows no respect for her minions (and people who are trying to help her) should be outed: as unworthy of being a minister.

Yes her shown dishonesty is further exacerbated by her performance in hospital: her derangement should be public knowledge as her decisions effect millions.

Yes, journalists and editors should be lauded instead of hunted: for bringing this knowledge to the public attention.

A person of such low moral fibre should immediately be FIRED.

You're deliberately missing/disregarding his point. The issue here is that the Sunday times either commited an act of theft and as such should be subjected to the same procedure as all citizens of this country who break the law, or they were party to such an act being commited and/or aided the commiting of said criminal act. Whether Manto is fit for office is something else. What you're going on about is another topic altogether. I guess the point i'm trying to make is that the Sunday times are trying to potray themselves as these all noble, truth seeking matyrs of freedom of the press, and that's the excuse they're put forward for trampling on someone's individual's rights.

 

[Debbie]

No actual medical information mind. Just reports of drunken abuse -- for which the minister is not entirely unknown -- while in hospital.

Let's face it, if being in possession of something that's been stolen were a serious offence in SA we might all be in jail.

Who can forget that the chief of police (and Interpol!) Jackie Selebi, seems constantly to find himself driving stolen cars.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200710160196.html

 

[kilo39]

You're deliberately missing/disregarding his point. The issue here is that the Sunday times either commited an act of theft and as such should be subjected to the same procedure as all citizens of this country who break the law, or they were party to such an act being commited and/or aided the commiting of said criminal act. Whether Manto is fit for office is something else. What you're going on about is another topic altogether. I guess the point i'm trying to make is that the Sunday times are trying to potray themselves as these all noble, truth seeking matyrs of freedom of the press, and that's the excuse they're put forward for trampling on someone's individual's rights.

No. The point is: yes the ST 'came into possession' of these documents. Whoever [-]stole[/-] published them was acting in the public interest therefore should be lauded not prosecuted.

Were the journalists who outed Nixon prosecuted?

If the ST stole them: then it is in the public interest and should not lead to prosecution.

PS. A minister doesn't have 'individual rights' IF it is in the public interest in terms of 'government.' OR she should not be a minister.

 

[Jozi101]

No. The point is: yes the ST 'came into possession' of these documents. Whoever [-]stole[/-] published them was acting in the public interest therefore should be lauded not prosecuted.

Were the journalists who outed Nixon prosecuted?

If the ST stole them: then it is in the public interest and should not lead to prosecution.

So who'se decision is that to make? Government?

Edit: Same can be said of Vigilantesm, Murder, White collar crime...etc, etc. If we start to think like that, then we're heading the wrong way.

 

[kilo39]

So who'se decision is that to make? Government?

See my previous post edited comment. It is the decision of the public, ie, public opinion decide whether it is in the publics interest. Journalists and editors are gatekeepers of the public interest and publics right to know. IOW they decide.

If government choose to go ahead and prosecute 'the public interest' then this is a turn away from democracy.

 

[CathJ]

There is a difference between drinking like a fish and being an alcoholic. If you are able to control your drinking and it does not affect your professional life, I would hesitate to call you an alcoholic.

However, if drinking does have a material affect on your ability to conduct your affairs i.e. dependence on drink and the influence both during and post drinking alter your behaviour to any material extent, then I would classify you as an alcoholic.

To my knowledge, no one has conclusively established whether Manto is an alcoholic (I stand to be corrected and don't have time to do the research). However, if it does have a material impact on her work, it most definitely is according to section 14 "a serious threat to public health".

With regard to the theft: Manto is a public servant. As such she is a leader in the country and should be held to the highest level of morale integrity. With a person of lesser standing, one can be more lenient, however, not with a cabinet minister.

As SOX said, "What message are they trying to send?"
In this case, clearly one that says: "Theft is OK"

That's not quite the way that clause is intended. It's meant for things like, I dunno, SARS (the disease, not the revenue system) where that person's health status must be disclosed otherwise they'll go around fatally infecting other people. I know what you're trying to get at, but it's really not the same thing.

 

[kilo39]

So who'se decision is that to make? Government?

Edit: Same can be said of Vigilantesm, Murder, White collar crime...etc, etc. If we start to think like that, then we're heading the wrong way.

No "Public Interest" is to the greater public good: which those other things on your list are not.

 

[Jozi101]

See my previous post edited comment. It is the decision of the public, ie, public opinion decide whether it is in the publics interest. Journalists and editors are gatekeepers of the public interest and publics right to know. IOW they decide.

If government choose to go ahead and prosecute 'the public interest' then this is a turn away from democracy.

Ok, so in this instance what does public opinion say? I'd really like to know this.

 

[chiskop]

Edit: Same can be said of Vigilantesm, Murder, White collar crime...etc, etc. If we start to think like that, then we're heading the wrong way.

Not really:

... the nature of journalism – and the reasons it is the only profession which gets special constitutional status and protection – is that editors and reporters are expected to act in the public interest. They do not always do so, and can expect little protection when this is the case. But when they do, they expect – like any other citizen would – that this will be taken into account.

When someone races through red traffic lights at great speed in order to get an emergency patient to hospital, they are not prosecuted. They are praised. If you break a ban on swimming in Zoo Lake to rescue someone, you would be surprised to be carted off to court. When journalists in the course of their job do something for the public interest – such as exposing malfeasance, corruption or official incompetence – then they can expect the same kind of treatment, a recognition that doing it in the public interest can justify irregular behavior.

The key phrase is in the public interest.

 

[Tassidar]

There is just no way, without the highest political sanction, that a misdemeanour such as handling the medical records of an individual would normally be assigned to a senior policemen who, in his efforts to crack this non-case, would travel at taxpayer expense to New Zealand to interview the person who actually stole the medical records and make no attempt to charge said thief.

Instead what we have is not so much a case of the "law following its course" but an act of political revenge instigated by Mbeki to punish Makhanya for daring to publish reports, gleaned from this stolen hospital record, of bad behaviour by his old friend, Health Minister Manto Tshabalala- Msimang.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200710160196.html (Debbie's Source)

That pretty much sums it up. I don't actually have a problem with the state pursuing justice in a reasonable and rational way, using the same resources other cases would be given.

However, I do have a problem with political intervention to protect parties who are clearly very much in the wrong. Jozi and Sox, surely you can agree to this?